The KJB VS the usual suspects

Are any of those others the word of the Lord to us also in English?

 

Corrupted as in perverted and not teaching the doctrines of God? You can find EVERY doctrine the KJV teaches in those other versions!

 

What about churches that used for years the 1984 Niv as common bible?

 

Perhaps the problem was created by someone teaching those people erroneous human KJV-only reasoning or the problem was because of your own acceptance of human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.

English-speaking believers did not seem to have considered it a problem when there were many actual differences in meaning in the pre-1611 English Bibles and when the pre-1611 English Bibles did not always match each other.

 

The Church of England makers of the KJV evidently did not consider it a problem when the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate did not match the non-Catholic pre-1611 English Bibles since they still choose to borrow many renderings from the Rheims.

 

Find every doctrine to help you replenish yourself

 

The Church of England makers of the KJV changed the loved and accepted 1560 Geneva Bible in a good number of the same places as the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament did since they borrowed those renderings from the 1582 Rheims and put them in the 1611.

 

When the KJV translators are given the interpretive leeway of not having to give an English word for each and every original language word found in a verse, why are other Bible translators not given the same freedom?

When the Church of England makers of the KJV are sometimes allowed to interpret what God meant instead of translating literally and word-for-word what God said, why should other Bible translators not be given the same latitude?

If the KJV translators are permitted to omit providing a rendering for one original-language word based on their understanding of the literal meaning of the entire sentence instead of the literal meaning of each individual word, will other Bible translators be given the same allowable discretion or leeway?

At times, does KJV-only reasoning suggest a non-preservationist view that this or that word can be arbitrarily omitted based upon a consensus of Church of England scholars in 1611?

If the same amount of leeway is granted to the NKJV translators that is in effect granted to the KJV translators, many of the KJV-only allegations against the NKJV would be eliminated or discredited.

 

Should your video be assumed by fallacies to be suspect because of your subjective KJV-only bias just as you may assume by fallacies and as you may make unrighteous judgments based on use of unjust divers measures/standards?

Does your premise involve use of the guilt by association fallacy as you do not prove that other English Bible translators consulted or followed the Jehovah Witnesses' translation?

While the 1611 KJV's association with the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, which is on the KJV-only view's line of corrupt Bibles, is known to be a fact because of the first-hand testimony of one of the KJV translators, can you provide any first-hand testimony from the English Bible translators that they consulted or made use of the Jehovah Witnesses' translation?

 

Are you suggesting that the doctrine of baptism only for believers depends upon only one verse?

Do you prove that the verse belongs in the Greek NT text since according to Scripture it is just as wrong to add to the text as it is to omit from the text?

Do you ignore and avoid the fact that many of the over 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts which KJV-only advocates claim as support do not have Acts 8:37 in their text?

Would you attack and accuse many of the Greek NT manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus is supposedly based? Are you suggesting that all the Greek NT manuscripts that do not have Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, or any other verse should not be claimed as support for other Textus Receptus readings?

Erasmus himself indicated that he added the verse to his Greek NT text from the margin of one Greek manuscript. Jan Krans asserted: “In the case of Acts Erasmus initially supposed that the Greek manuscripts he consulted suffered from omissions, while later, having consulted more sources, he came to doubt the Vulgate additions (Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 14:7; 23:25; 24:6-7)” (Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, p. 61, footnote 36).

After including Acts 8:37 in his list of Latin Vulgate readings followed by Erasmus, KJV defender Edward F. Hills maintained that “in his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading [Acts 8:37] from the margin of [manuscript] 4ap” (KJV Defended, pp. 200-201).

 

To accuse the NKJV of copying the Jehovah Witnesses' Version as some KJV-only advocates do when the NKJV translators did not copy it or even consult it would be slanderous. To accuse the NKJV translators of taking away the Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ is ridiculous. The Greek word pais in these verses was used for both child or servant with the meaning determined by the context. Greek has a different word for "son"--huios. The KJV itself translated this Greek word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times.

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25). This first-hand statement from a NKJV translator refutes Riplinger’s false accusation that the reason for the NKJV’s rendering was a lexicon. Does love for the KJV justify such false and seemingly malicious attacks on other translations?

This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? Would a consistent application of inconsistent, unjust KJV-only reasoning attack the KJV for referring to the Messiah as a servant in the book of Isaiah?

The Companion Bible [KJV] has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585). The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25." Concerning Acts 3:13, A. T. Robertson noted: "This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1; 52:13 about the Messiah except the name 'Jesus' which Peter adds" (Word Pictures, III, p. 43). Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).

It is incredible that KJV-only advocates cannot see their use of double standards or unjust divers measures.

 

Do you disobey Scripture as your unproven and false accusation would bear false witness?